Slashdot Log In
Can I Be Fired For Refusing To File a Patent?
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Aug 17, 2008 03:02 AM
from the if-you-don't-cooperate-your-replacement-will dept.
from the if-you-don't-cooperate-your-replacement-will dept.
An anonymous reader writes "I am a developer for a medium-sized private technology company getting ready for an IPO. My manager woke up one morning and decided to patent some stuff I did recently. The problem is, I'm strongly opposed to software patents, believing that they are stifling innovation and dragging the technology industry down (see all the frivolous lawsuits reported here on Slashdot!). Now, my concern is: what kind of consequences could I bring on myself for refusing to support the patent process? Has anybody been in a similar position and what was the outcome?"
Related Stories
Submission: Can I be fired for refusing to file a patent by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be fired for anything.
The real question is, can you afford legal action to contest your firing, and do the state and federal laws, and your employment contract, support your actions? To answer those toughies, you need a good lawyer. Not slashdot.
Better approach (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell boss the patent wont fly because of this prior art and you're saving the company $10k+
Parent
Re:Better approach (Score:5, Insightful)
and tell your boss, as well as the IP attorneys working on it within/for your company, in a paper-trail-setting medium like email, dressed up as a question of an inquisitive techno-geek wanting to satisfy his curiosity:
"So, on this flux capacitor patent thing: What do you guys make of this Heisenberg compensator design I found at this URL here? I kind of derived my design from that, is that something that would go in the prior art list we talked about during the IP attorney meeting the other day?"
Poison that well.
Parent
Re:Better approach (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.itconsult.co.uk/stamper.htm [itconsult.co.uk]
Parent
Re:Better approach (Score:5, Insightful)
Just BCC to a Gmail account. The addressees won't know, and you can't tamper with those mail properties I suppose. That should do as timestamp and backup.
Parent
Re:Send your ideas to google first! (Score:5, Interesting)
That's Funny/Insightful, but it also raises the point that forwarding confidential company emails to a "timestamper" or a Gmail account may be sufficient grounds to fire you. I don't know what the labour laws are in various places, but if you signed any kind of an employment agreement or an NDA or something, read it carefully before forwarding unencrypted, internal company docs anywhere. Even if you didn't, make sure that if something that could be construed as a "trade secret" or "proprietary information" surfaces out in the wild, it can not be traced back to you.
Also, the more I think about it, the more I'm certain the parent was Insightful. Google does parse your email, and I wouldn't want to have to explain to my boss how Google managed to beat us on a patent for something we've spent a lot of resources on developing.
Parent
Re:Better approach (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, little guy has the edge.
In what twisted reality are you living? In my reality, the little guy needs income, to wit: a job, without which he will, in the space of something like 6 months to a year (or two if he's rare and has savings), lose his home, means of transportation, and most likely his spouse and children. Furthering your divergence from the earthly plane is the fact that barristers, advocates, abogados, and douche-bag ambulance chasers on my planet all expect to be paid. Unless you have such a slam-dunk obvious case that one of these pillars of society will take it on contingency (which is expressly forbidden by the courts in many situations: consult your local douche-bag for details), where does this money come from - oh yes, the next mortgage payment, and what does the wife think of that, paying $300 per hour on a gamble against $1800 per month for a roof? Oh, and how long do cases typically require to come to trial?
Meanwhile, on the other side, we have the employer, who likely either employs a legal department or, if they are relatively small, at least has one or more on retainer.
With these starting conditions, I'd say that the little guy doesn't have much edge at all. Of course, if the little guy does get to see the inside of the courtroom before he's homeless, he does have all kinds of sympathy on his side - and that comprises a bit of an edge. Add to this the fact that little guys (with any brains) would only pursue cases in which they are far onto the righteous side, and I bet the little guy has a better than average win record, in the courtroom.
Stampers are a nice idea, but use of one may in and of itself be grounds for dismissal under confidentiality agreements that employers commonly require the little guys to sign (transmission of confidential information, including internal communications, to a third party.)
Hat tip to the virtuous attorneys out there, all nineteen of you worldwide, keep fighting the good fight!
To the poster: consider polishing the resume' - this is sound advice at any time, but if you are having philosophical differences, it might be a good time to shop the market, get a realistic picture of your options, and then decide what to do based on that information. If there's nothing else out there for you, sit down, shut up, and file the patent - it's actually good for your resume no matter how you slice it, even if you eventually seek employment at an ideally minded firm, you can tell them that the reason you are leaving your current job is because they compelled you to file the patent and you didn't have any options at the time. If your options are strong, you can use that to leverage your current position - demand the patent not be filed, and a pay raise, and if they don't like it, exercise that option to move to a new job.
Parent
Re:Better approach (Score:4, Informative)
Stampers are a nice idea, but use of one may in and of itself be grounds for dismissal under confidentiality agreements that employers commonly require the little guys to sign (transmission of confidential information, including internal communications, to a third party.)
Stampers are only as 'authentic' as a judge believes a third-party to be. There's an ironclad way to maintain confidentiality and to record the time and date of the communication. Send the e-mail, ask for a reply. When you get the reply (or after a few days, if they do not respond), print out the e-mail. Take the printout to a notary public and ask the notary to officially witness that you've been in possession of this document at this time and day.
Parent
You can't cheat an honest man (Score:4, Insightful)
.
You will find the lawyer - or the doctor - you deserve.
If he isn't telling you the truth, it is because you don't want to hear the truth.
Parent
Re:Better approach (Score:5, Informative)
"Wrongful dismissal case?" If you're fired because of your race, sex, or a few other things, then sure. Otherwise, generally a boss can fire an employee "at will", for reasons like "I don't like you."
I think several posters are forgetting what counts in business - integrity. The right thing for this guy to do is tell his boss his concerns, and perhaps highlight the poor light that the USPTO has lately taken on software patents. If his boss persists, he should either relent and file the patent, or consider a new job. That way, at least he keeps his integrity. Lying to his boss, or purposely undermining the patent would damage his integrity.
Parent
Not true in every country (Score:5, Informative)
In some countries (European ones are a good example) governments prefer to protect employees from bosses firing for no reason because otherwise you get inflated unemployment figures. In the UK for example you have to have a reason to fire someone and it has to be fair. Even in the case of redundancies you can't get rid of the people you dislike under a lot of circumstances, you have to be able to justify why you've got rid of them if they've been there longer than other employees, you have to justify why you got rid of them if they perform better than other employees and so on. In other words you can't get rid of them if they're a good employee and you don't have good reason.
You can't even get rid of them by trying to make their life hell and making them want to leave because providing they've had the sense to document and get as much evidence (i.e. copies of e-mails) of all instances where the boss has made your life hell to try and make you leave. An employee who has had his life made difficult more so than other employees and who has evidence may choose to stay or leave the company and go for a constructive dismissal industrial tribunal. Payouts for succesful cases are often large on the order of 10s to 100s of thousands of pounds, this often acts as a good deterrent for bosses not to be particularly malicious assholes to employees. Realistically if you do stay in your job and file an industrial tribunal for this type of thing you'll probably find you have no future at that job anyway, but chances are if someone's boss is screwing them over regularly enough for them to file a tribunal you wouldn't have much to lose in that respect anyway.
I'm not sure however that even if these kind of laws were applicable in the country the poster lived in that not liking the patent system is grounds for avoiding the sack. When I was working in IT support I didn't particularly like users but I'm not sure I'd have got on too well if I'd refused to speak to them.
Parent
Re:Better approach (Score:5, Insightful)
Find some prior art.
and tell your boss, as well as the IP attorneys working on it within/for your company, in a paper-trail-setting medium like email, dressed up as a question of an inquisitive techno-geek wanting to satisfy his curiosity:
"So, on this flux capacitor patent thing: What do you guys make of this Heisenberg compensator design I found at this URL here? I kind of derived my design from that, is that something that would go in the prior art list we talked about during the IP attorney meeting the other day?"
Poison that well.
Umm, really bad idea. They'll just fire him for 'stealing paperclips' or some such pretext in week's time.
Result: Dishonourable discharge, i.e. fired + bad reference. No one respects a weasel.
Another possibility is going to your boss and expressing your concerns. Bosses respect that shit, but they won't know what the hell he is talking about. There is a risk of a blazing row.
Result: Honourable discharge, i.e. let go with a glowing reference (best case) dishonourable discharge (worst case).
Better but still not good. And they'll just ask someone else to file the patent anyway.
I'd take the patent and try to get them to offer to license free for non commercial use. Talk about laptops for African orphans or whatever your concern is. It's the best chance of not hosing your career. Plus there's the opportunity to have a serious talk with the boss, and they absolutely love that shit. And they can spin it as corporate social responsibility, laptops for photogenic smiling African orphans, file photos of which can be put on the website. Hell, offer to do that webpage too.
Result: Your career is safe.
Parent
Re:Better approach (Score:5, Insightful)
You missed the point. The question is poised from the perspective that the submitter would like to keep his job.
As an employer I can respect a someone standing up for what they think is matter of principle. I wouldn't fire him but I would consider his principles when deciding who works on what projects and who is moving up in the company.
On the other hand, if I have an employee who clearly has become subversive, well, he might as well be working for my competition.
And I don't need him to the file patent. I own the work considering it was developed while under my employ. The Patent Office isn't going to spend any time tracking him down to garner his opinions on the existence of prior art.
Pinky, you don't have to participate in my plans for world domination to be an employee here. But don't expect me to employ you so you can try to thwart me.
Parent
Re:Better approach (Score:4, Interesting)
File the prior art together with the patent application and make the application so bad that it's rejected.
That should teach your boss.
Or file the whole thing on slashdot as an AC. But let a friend write it so the writing style isn't matching your style.
But maybe your boss was asked for possible patents from an investor. Venture capitalists usually looks for companies to invest in by measuring the patents they have. Which in the end doesn't say a thing about how well the company actually can fare. It may also be that your boss (if he owns the company) is under way of selling it and wants to get as much money out of it as possible, which may mean that you can get fired anyway for other reasons.
Parent
Re:Better approach (Score:4, Insightful)
Smart.
If you find an existing patent that covers your company's product(s), and fail to license the patent from the patent-holder, your continuing infringement will constitute willful infringement. In which case the patent-holder is entitled to triple damages.
As others have said, consult a lawyer, not slashdot. Seriously.
P.S. Is the patent your boss wants for your company's only product or primary breadwinner? Because if so, and you find prior art, you will in effect force your company to license said prior art. In other words, you will force your company to buy into this system that you loathe.
Parent
Re:Better approach (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. But if you're doing research on prior art and stumble upon an existing patent, you've immediately started willful infringement. Doing the research itself is risky.
Of course, so is getting legal advice from slashdot.
Parent
Re:Better approach (Score:5, Informative)
You have to do that as part of the patent application process anyway!
Parent
Re:Prior art approach (Score:5, Informative)
> You have to do that as part of the patent application process anyway!
Actually, no, you don't. You have an obligation (and it continues right up until the patent issues) to disclose any relevant prior art you know of -- or, for that matter any information you know that could affect, in any way, the patent examiners decisions.
But you are under no obligation to go *looking* for that information. That's the examiners job.
Of course I'm not a lawyer, but that's what they tell me when I do file patents. (yes, I'm an evil software patenter -- there goes my karma)
Your lawyer may say something different -- if you are filing a patent, I suggest you listen to him, and not me on this subject :-).
Back to the original subject at hand -- if you do find prior art, it would save the company money by not patenting -- which does cost 10 to 20k per. And whether you send this notice by email or not, you can and should insist on meeting your obligations under law to disclose that prior art to the patent office when and if you file for a patent.
Parent
Chances are... you have "at will" employment (Score:5, Insightful)
which means that either you or the employer can terminate the relationship at any time with or without cause.
which also probably means they can fire you and not face the consequences. It just won't be a "for cause" firing, but rather letting you go for some bogus reason.
which, if you think about it, makes sense.
The real question is -- what's more important to your employer (or, more precisely, your immediate manager)? You or your cooperation with whatever they ask?
Parent
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea of getting a lawyer is the best advice that anyone can give.
Parent
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Notice how Microsoft patents, for example, are owned by Microsoft Corporation, not by the individual coders who came up with whatever algorithm/mechanism/whatever the company is trying to patent.
Therefore, I *think* that your boss is just requesting your help filing and managing whatever the software does (assuming he is not a techie and can't write out the algorithm/flow charts himself). If you refuse to help him, he could still get a patent, and probably fire you, too...
HOWEVER! I am not a lawyer, and this sounds like something that should be verified by one. I would recommend talking to a patent attorney as well.
Hope that helps!
Parent
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Notice how Microsoft patents, for example, are owned by Microsoft Corporation, not by the individual coders who came up with whatever algorithm/mechanism/whatever the company is trying to patent.
They're owned by Microsoft, but (AFAIK) the original inventor is still listed by name. When I was in this situation, that was the part that most rankled: that it was 100% the company's idea to file a patent for this stupidly broad and obvious idea, but that my own name would end up on the paperwork. So if this is the case for you too, perhaps you could try and persuade your boss, or someone else, that the conversations you had with them while developing the idea actually mean that they are the real inventor, and should have their name on the patent instead of yours.
FWIW the eventual outcome in my case was that the (UK) patent office rejected the patent, citing as prior art something so left-field that connecting it to the patent application seemed to me much more of an intellectual leap, than coming up with the idea we were trying to patent in the first place. Or, in other words, the company spend thousands of pounds on absolutely nothing and learned not to do that again. Which is a good outcome.
Peter
Parent
Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)
I'm so glad we're on the same page. You're the kind of innovative, can-do individual we need to enhance our organisational synergy.
We must calendar some face-time to discuss how better to engage our value customers with a view to leveraging our key threshold activities to achieve ongoing transformation.
Parent
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)
Someone probably yelled BINGO! after that last sentence, so he stopped.
Parent
Firing (Score:4, Informative)
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure there's only a small set of things you can't be fired for in the US, like race, and anything else is legal. There's probably no law protecting your right not to file patents.
Re:Firing -- religious objection (Score:5, Funny)
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure there's only a small set of things you can't be fired for in the US, like race, and anything else is legal.
You can't be fired for religious belief. Join the church of GNU. it already has a saint [softpanorama.org]
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Obligation to Company (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obligation to Company (Score:5, Insightful)
The previous poster is right, mostly. If your employer feels your wonderful software needs to be patented, you have to do it. No way around it.
On the other hand, you should strive to do your work as well as possible and support your employer whole-heartly and stay inside the law. Take it as an opportunity to learn more about the patent process. Try to provide good data for the patent.
First is the matter of previous art. Take your time and research it properly - no vague: Doh, someone must have done it before it isn't rocket science. Document your findings and keep the documentation and send it to the responsible people for filing the patent in a provable manner.
The other part is the obviousness, but that may be harder to document that management understands. You may get away with documenting that your things are just standard techniques any decent CS-major or developer knows about and uses daily.
Legal people really hate it, when they can't deny knowing about holes in their patent. And if you did your work properly, the patent shouldn't have many legs to stand on, should they go ahead.
Parent
Re:Obligation to Company (Score:5, Insightful)
Legal people really hate it, when they can't deny knowing about holes in their patent. And if you did your work properly, the patent shouldn't have many legs to stand on, should they go ahead.
One problem is that if you file your part of the patent claim to the legal people and then they file the patent they may chose to cut out parts of prior art that you have written just to ensure that it will get through the patent system. That's one reason for hiring a patent lawyer - make the application as general as possible to allow for the best and broadest hit. The patent office won't be able to search fully for prior art because they don't have the knowledge you have about the thing patented.
Yes - I have an evil mood today...
Parent
Re:Obligation to Company (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Obligation to Company (Score:4, Informative)
That's totally wrong analogy. Let's take my favorite subject, me, for example.
To do development and participate in other functions around development, like patenting stuff, is what I am paid for. I signed a contract that says so, so I must obey it or I get my ass fired and beaten in the court.
Now allthough my contract says that I'm supposed to do "other duties assigned by the employer" those "other duties" must relate to my actual work function somehow. Cleaning toilets is totally out of the question but like changing ink cartridges to the printer could be considered as "other duties".
Parent
Patent something else first (Score:5, Funny)
Then they'll have to license the technology to be able to use it against you.
Frivolous patents are evil.
Job vs principaled stand (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
When you get paid to do a job what you produce isn't yours. Of course you can be fired for this - and what difference does it make whether you file the patent or someone else does? If you feel really strongly about it you can hold firm, but realize if they can you there's nothing you can do.
On the other hand, if you really want to screw him you can search the patent databases and find one that's similar. Then tell your boss. Knowingly violating a patent is treble damages, which is why they tell you never to look. They'll probably fire you for that too, but that should severely complicate their foray into patentland.
Not going along with legal/hr is a losing battle. (Score:5, Interesting)
Does the phrase "at will employment" ring a bell?
Choose your battles in business wisely -- making a philosophical stand could have a heavy financial impact on you.
You may not "get fired" over taking a stand -- but it would probably put you in the "not a team player" camp.
Career-wise, that may be even worse (financially) than being fired. If your Company is planning an IPO, they probably have a substantial legal department... And enemies in Legal (the same people usually championing the patent process) are the worse kind of enemies to have. You may start getting the cold shoulder at review time, bonus time, and option-allotment time... Legal, unfortunately, isn't quiet when they have gripes -- and they usually have the means to pull strings like that!
Think it through... (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll be fired, and they'll file the patent anyway.
You're asking the wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
A better question is: am I valuable enough to the company that threatening to quit if they patent my work likely to be of any concern to them? If the answer is no, you make your own decision about what is more important to you, your job or your ethics.
Easy fix (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a very easy fix for this.
Make an anonymous posting somewhere, describing the innovation you came up with. If it has been disseminated before, it cannot be patented.
This is a fairly common process with companies that either cannot afford to patent or don't want to. They put in a 1 page add in some random magazine (Sheep Shearer Magazine, New Zealand) describing the invention and order a copy of the magazine. Then when someone else comes along and threatens a lawsuit because they patented the process, they simply show the magazine again and Bob's your uncle.
Maybe Slashdot could make an "invention" section for just this kind of stuff.
Re:Easy fix (Score:5, Informative)
Make an anonymous posting somewhere, describing the innovation you came up with. If it has been disseminated before, it cannot be patented.
The problem with doing that is if the invention is not obvious and has paved the way for considerable financial gain then the company can probably trace it back to you through court orders for information; regardless of how anonymous you thought you were at the time.
It _IS_ a breach of your contract to release trade secrets outside of the company you work for. It's a pretty much standard clause in every employment contract. If it is traced back to you there could be loss of job, litigation, and possibly criminal charges depending on the severity that your company puts on the matter.
Parent
Patents are not automatically enforced. Patent it. (Score:5, Informative)
If you are against software patents, the best thing you can do is get your own patents in the current state of things. Then you can choose to not enforce them, while having strong grounds to prevent anyone else from patenting it and suing you despite your work being prior art. (It can and does happen.)
How "strongly" opposed are you really? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think a better question is... is your opposition to patents so strong that you would be willing to stand up and lose your job for it?
I've been in a situation that forced me to stand up for what I believe in and was fired for it. I'd do it again in a heartbeat, because I wouldn't be able to work at a place that compromised my value system...
So is the question really whether they're able to fire you for not doing it?
How strong are your convictions, really?
As much as it pains me to say this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your boss may not be wrong for patenting your work.
If your work contributed to or is a piece of code or software that your company relies on for revenue, what happens if he doesn't patent it? Someone else does. And then turns and sues your company for using "their" code. It's not hard to see where that leads. Company going under, you and your boss getting fired, etc, etc.?
I don't like it any more than the next Slashdotter, but it's not hard to picture that exact scenario.
You may have to just grin and bear it.
Re:As much as it pains me to say this... (Score:4, Insightful)
what happens if he doesn't patent it? Someone else does.
Not if the relevant (possibly) patentable materials are already published. Write an article about whatever it is in a trade rag and it will become unpatentable.
Of course, in the gridlock crap system we have, someone else could patent a natural evolution of the subject matter, in which case having a patent to stop them from improving your thing might be useful.
You may have to just grin and bear it.
Or just, which is your duty, carefully disclose every single piece of prior art or similar idea you have read about. Which would strengthen the patent if it actually is issued, but more likely just make it obvious that whatever it is is utterly obvious to anyone actually trying to solve the particular problem.
Parent
The rough draft of the summary: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hey Slashdot, look how cool and ethical I am! I have problems with how my company is doing something and I want to "ask" about it even though all of the relevant options are obvious! This is so everyone will know how awesome I am because I don't believe in patents!"
I mean, cool or whatever, but did you really think you were going to get any other answer than, "What's worth more, your job, or your beliefs about software patents?"
Surely anyone intelligent enough to HAVE this dilemma should be able to map out the various options and likely outcomes. At least, just as well as anyone on slashdot can.
I went through a similar issue (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically I did something I thought was obvious, and the company wanted to patent it (which required me to sign a patent application). I said I wasn't willing to sign something asserting that the invention was non-obvious. Surprisingly, the lawyer was ok with this objection (maybe he'd heard it before). He pointed out that the patent application doesn't itself assert non-obviousness anywhere, it only requires me to state that I did the work (which was true). Non-obviousness is determined by the examiners. If their assessment differs from mine, that's not my fault.
I too am opposed to software patents and wish they would go away, but a situation where the stuff I work on doesn't get patented, but others patent stuff to use against me, is unilateral disarmanent, which is just stupid. I went ahead and signed the application and the patent issued a while later, adding one to the tens of thousands of other stupid and basically useless patents out there. That's not such a great situation, but I figure I signed up for it when I agreed to work for a non-free software startup to begin with. I similarly am opposed to excess carbon emissions but still drive my car more than I really have to.
The startup I worked at eventually failed, so now I write free software for a living. It doesn't pay as well but I like it better in other regards.
Anyway, my advice is sign the paper--if you didn't want to do that then you shouldn't have taken the money. Think of it as injecting one more piece of patent pollution into the software atmosphere. Hopefully there will be a mass invalidation of those patents sometime. Meanwhile, if you don't want to contribute to its worsening, consider that you're not working at the right place.
Filing is step 1 (Score:5, Interesting)
Filing for a patent does not mean you have a patent, it could take years of iterations etc to get a definite patent on something and even then people may still contest it. My suggestion is that if you're inclined to stick to your morals (which btw I don't totally agree with) , to go with the flow but sort of keep the filing so general and vague that any monkey could come along and contest it. At the end of the day you're not a patent lawyer, you can't be accused of not doing your job properly.
Also don't bite the hand that pays your salary.
Re:Why fight? (Score:4, Insightful)
The do need to list the inventors by name, even if the patent belongs to a company. IIRC they do need to list your name on the patent, and that requires your consent/signature.
I agree with trying to convince the boss to see reason. You'll likely not succeed though.
It sounds like the usual bunch of suits trying to fluff up the value of their company with things that have little meaning and that they know very little about (patents pending that may or may not rejected later) before they flog it off and get rich.
Parent